IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v37y2020i2p356-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the number of options affects prosocial choice

Author

Listed:
  • Herzenstein, Michal
  • Dholakia, Utpal M.
  • Sonenshein, Scott

Abstract

Are potential contributors more likely to support a prosocial cause when presented with few contribution options or with many options? Across four studies—an analysis of archival contribution data from the crowdfunding site Kickstarter, a field experiment conducted in cooperation with a grocery store and a snack bar company, and two controlled laboratory experiments—we consistently find that when a fundraiser offers more options to potential contributors, the likelihood of contribution initially decreases and then increases. The result is a U-shaped relationship between the number of contribution options and contribution likelihood. We do not find such an effect for non-prosocial choices. With a fifth study, we offer a preliminary and tentative theoretical explanation for the U-shaped relationship, suggesting that the type of information processing by the decision maker (intuitive rather than deliberate) underlies this effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Herzenstein, Michal & Dholakia, Utpal M. & Sonenshein, Scott, 2020. "How the number of options affects prosocial choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 356-370.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:37:y:2020:i:2:p:356-370
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2019.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811619300710
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2019.10.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    2. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis M. Miller, 2008. "Instinctive Response in the Ultimatum Game," ThE Papers 08/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    3. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    4. Mitchell, Olivia S. & Utkus, Stephen P. (ed.), 2004. "Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199273393.
    5. Alexander Peysakhovich & David G. Rand, 2016. "Habits of Virtue: Creating Norms of Cooperation and Defection in the Laboratory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 631-647, March.
    6. Cassie Mogilner & Tamar Rudnick & Sheena S. Iyengar, 2008. "The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers' Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 202-215, June.
    7. Barbara Kahn & Alexander Chernev & Ulf Böckenholt & Kate Bundorf & Michaela Draganska & Ryan Hamilton & Robert Meyer & Klaus Wertenbroch, 2014. "Consumer and managerial goals in assortment choice and design," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 293-303, September.
    8. Mollick, Ethan, 2014. "The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16.
    9. Daniel Mochon, 2013. "Single-Option Aversion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 555-566.
    10. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis Miller, 2017. "Strategic risk and response time across games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 511-523, May.
    11. John T. Gourville & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 382-395, July.
    12. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    13. Eamonn Ferguson & John Maltby & Peter A Bibby & Claire Lawrence, 2014. "Fast to Forgive, Slow to Retaliate: Intuitive Responses in the Ultimatum Game Depend on the Degree of Unfairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
    14. Jonah Berger & Michaela Draganska & Itamar Simonson, 2007. "The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 460-472, 07-08.
    15. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:332-341 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. David G Rand & Ziv G Epstein, 2014. "Risking Your Life without a Second Thought: Intuitive Decision-Making and Extreme Altruism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-6, October.
    18. Elena Reutskaja & Axel Lindner & Rosemarie Nagel & Richard A. Andersen & Colin F. Camerer, 2018. "Choice overload reduces neural signatures of choice set value in dorsal striatum and anterior cingulate cortex," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 925-935, December.
    19. Kahn, Barbara E., 2017. "Using Visual Design to Improve Customer Perceptions of Online Assortments," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 29-42.
    20. Cassie Mogilner & Tamar Rudnick & Sheena Iyengar, 2008. "The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers' Perceptions of Assortment Variety," Economics Working Papers 0070, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    21. Mary Steffel & Robyn A. LeBoeuf, 2014. "Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(6), pages 1167-1180.
    22. Dane, Erik & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Pratt, Michael G., 2012. "When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 187-194.
    23. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    24. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    25. Liu, Yi & Polman, Evan & Liu, Yongfang & Jiao, Jiangli, 2018. "Choosing for others and its relation to information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 65-75.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahmadi, Iman & Habel, Johannes & Jia, Miaolei & Wei, Sarah, 2022. "Consumer stockpiling under the impact of a global disaster: The evolution of affective and cognitive motives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 56-71.
    2. Yamoah, Fred A. & Yawson, David Eshun, 2022. "Promoting global well-being through fairtrade food: the role of international exposure," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(2), November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    2. Yan, Huan & Chang, En-Chung & Chou, Ting-Jui & Tang, Xiaofei, 2015. "The over-categorization effect: How the number of categorizations influences shoppers' perceptions of variety and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 631-638.
    3. Krawczyk, Michał & Sylwestrzak, Marta, 2018. "Exploring the role of deliberation time in non-selfish behavior: The double response method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 121-134.
    4. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "Impulsive Behavior in Competition: Testing Theories of Overbidding in Rent-Seeking Contests," Working Papers 16-21, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    5. Beneke, Justin & Cumming, Alice & Jolly, Lindsey, 2013. "The effect of item reduction on assortment satisfaction—A consideration of the category of red wine in a controlled retail setting," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 282-291.
    6. Akihiro Nishi & Nicholas A Christakis & David G Rand, 2017. "Cooperation, decision time, and culture: Online experiments with American and Indian participants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-9, February.
    7. Sascha Grehl & Andreas Tutić, 2022. "Intuition, reflection, and prosociality: Evidence from a field experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2014. "Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner's dilemma game: Are there brains in games?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    9. Hubert Janos Kiss & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia, 2019. "Does response time predict withdrawal decisions? Lessons from a bank-run experiment," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(3), pages 200-222, November.
    10. Spassova, Gerri & Isen, Alice M., 2013. "Positive affect moderates the impact of assortment size on choice satisfaction," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 397-408.
    11. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espín & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Working Papers 15-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Mejía, Victor D. & Aurier, Philippe & Huaman-Ramirez, Richard, 2021. "Disentangling the respective impacts of assortment size and alignability on perceived assortment variety," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    13. Park, Jeong-Yeol & Jang, SooCheong (Shawn), 2013. "Confused by too many choices? Choice overload in tourism," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Jeremy Cone & David G Rand, 2014. "Time Pressure Increases Cooperation in Competitively Framed Social Dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    16. Claire Heeryung Kim & Joonkyung Kim, 2021. "The Role of Cause Involvement and Assortment Size on Decision Difficulty via Communal Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    18. Eamonn Ferguson & John Maltby & Peter A Bibby & Claire Lawrence, 2014. "Fast to Forgive, Slow to Retaliate: Intuitive Responses in the Ultimatum Game Depend on the Degree of Unfairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
    19. Mark Schneider & Jonathan W. Leland, 2021. "Salience and social choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1215-1241, December.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:540-551 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Johannes Lohse & Timo Goeschl & Johannes H. Diederich, 2017. "Giving is a Question of Time: Response Times and Contributions to an Environmental Public Good," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 455-477, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:37:y:2020:i:2:p:356-370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.